jsr358
  1. jsr358
  2. JSR358-16

PMO should not be involved in Early Draft Review

    Details

    • Type: Improvement Improvement
    • Status: Reopened
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Component/s: JSR lifecycle
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Given the new transparency requirements, there seems to be little gained by involving
      the PMO in Early Draft Review. It would be easier for the EG to publish its draft
      specs on its project web site for review, whenever it wants, as often as it wants,
      for as long as it wants, without having to inform the PMO.

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Bill Shannon created issue -
          Hide
          pcurran added a comment -

          We discussed this at the September 21 Working Group meeting, and agreed that there is value to having a formal review process. (Note also that we tie this to the time-out requirements.)

          I'm closing this for now, but have added it to the JSR2 list for future consideration.

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - We discussed this at the September 21 Working Group meeting, and agreed that there is value to having a formal review process. (Note also that we tie this to the time-out requirements.) I'm closing this for now, but have added it to the JSR2 list for future consideration.
          pcurran made changes -
          Field Original Value New Value
          Status Open [ 1 ] Closed [ 6 ]
          Resolution Won't Fix [ 2 ]
          Hide
          Bill Shannon added a comment -

          I think it's sufficient that the formal review process start with Public Review.
          Ditto the timeout.

          Show
          Bill Shannon added a comment - I think it's sufficient that the formal review process start with Public Review. Ditto the timeout.
          Hide
          pcurran added a comment -

          I still don't want to make such an extensive change at this late stage.

          I reopened, and deferred the issue. We'll look at it again later...

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - I still don't want to make such an extensive change at this late stage. I reopened, and deferred the issue. We'll look at it again later...
          pcurran made changes -
          Resolution Won't Fix [ 2 ]
          Status Closed [ 6 ] Reopened [ 4 ]
          Tags defer
          pcurran made changes -
          Tags defer
          pcurran made changes -
          Tags Defer
          pcurran made changes -
          Project jsr348 [ 12019 ] jsr358 [ 12683 ]
          Key JSR348-121 JSR358-16
          pcurran made changes -
          Component/s JSR lifecycle [ 14522 ]
          Hide
          keilw added a comment -

          As there are Renewal Ballots now actively conducted, does this still make sense, at least the "review, whenever it wants, as often as it wants, for as long as it wants, without having to inform the PMO." part?

          Show
          keilw added a comment - As there are Renewal Ballots now actively conducted, does this still make sense, at least the "review, whenever it wants, as often as it wants, for as long as it wants, without having to inform the PMO." part?
          pcurran made changes -
          Tags Defer
          pcurran made changes -
          Tags jsr364
          pcurran made changes -
          Tags jsr364
          pcurran made changes -
          Link This issue duplicates JCPNEXT4-18 [ JCPNEXT4-18 ]
          pcurran made changes -
          Link This issue is duplicated by JCPNEXT4-18 [ JCPNEXT4-18 ]
          pcurran made changes -
          Link This issue duplicates JCPNEXT4-18 [ JCPNEXT4-18 ]

            People

            • Assignee:
              Unassigned
              Reporter:
              Bill Shannon
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated: